Report on Citizenship Law: Germany become common practice. Despite these facts the German government announced in June 2009 that it has currently no plans to change the existing legislation in this regard.63 The Government considers that by introducing the principle of ius soli in the German Nationality Act and by reducing the requirement of prior legal residence from 15 to 8 years, nationality law has been made flexible.64 The controversial assessment of the ‘option model’ has always been linked to this debate. While some in the literature praised the ‘option model’ – despite existing problems – as a success story (Lämmermann 2011), others argued that this legislation violates constitutional provisions and gives rise to legal uncertainty for many young German nationals (Göbel-Zimmermann/Eichhorn 2010a: 295). This debate has also formed the background of the recent amendment of the ‘option model’. While the Social Democratic Party initially favoured a general acceptance of dual nationality, the Christian Democratic Party argued only for a modest relaxation of the ‘option duty’. The recent legislative amendment is a compromise between these two positions and can be expected to settle the question for the time being. However, the government has been criticised by NGOs and lawyers for creating new administrative hurdles and upholding the ’option duty’ for purely symbolic reasons. A second, ongoing controversy concerns the question of withdrawal of nationality. This question is gaining a new relevance as in some cases withdrawal is now possible within a period of ten instead of five years after the acquisition. While the legal situation has been clarified by the legislative changes in 2009, the new regulation produced new problems with regard to the consequences of withdrawal in residence law (see Göbel-Zimmermann/Eichhorn 2010b: 349). According to the higher courts, the retroactive withdrawal of nationality, which is properly called nullification, does not lead to a revival of the former residence permit. This means that a former German national in theory may be obliged to leave the country since he is now a foreign national without residence permit. In practice former German nationals will either receive a residence permit or may apply for naturalisation since naturalisation authorities are obliged to consider alternative grounds for naturalisation. Problems related to the right to residence may, however, occur in some exceptional cases. Third, as a result of the enlargement of the European Union, it might become necessary to redefine the concept of a German repatriate. Until now, the Baltic states are still included in the scope of application of the Expellees Act. It is, however, very doubtful whether one can still assume that ethnic Germans or their second- or third-generation descendants in these countries are still in need of special protection by privileged access to German nationality. De facto, the number of ethnic Germans arriving in Germany and consequently the number of applications for a German passport has significantly decreased due to the fact that the language requirement now also applies to family reunification of ethnic Germans. There are also good arguments for terminating the special legal status of ethnic Germans and their descendants expelled after the Second World War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the situation justifying protection has substantially changed and one may well ask whether the need for protection still exists. 63 64 32 Bundestagsdrucksache (Official Records of the Bundestag), No. 16/13558, p. 8, 9. Bundestagsdrucksache (Official Records of the Bundestag), No. 16/13558, p. 11. RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/5- © 2020 Author(s)